What’s next? Donating the proceeds from sale of his unicorn?

Tim Hunt made offensive comments about women scientists in front of a group of women scientists. He apologized and he resigned.

Many men feel very bad about this.

No, not bad about the fact that Hunt felt free to humiliate women at a meeting designed to honor them. Be serious! They felt bad that any male scientist should be held to account for his not so subtle put down.

Maybe they wouldn’t mind it so much if he were a young bench scientist – but Tim Hunt is senior and important. Senior important guys shouldn’t be held to account, because not being held to account should be one of the perks of being senior and important.

There are a few apologists that are willing to acknowledge the obvious, but then minimize its significance. Jonathan Dimbleby, a broadcaster and writer has resignedhis honorary appointment at University College of London, in solidarity with Tim Hunt.

According to Dimbleby:

This is not an offence that should be enough to ensure a distinguished scientist should be told to resign his position.

Woah! What’s next? Donating the proceeds from sale of his unicorn? Nothing like demonstrating your support (resigning an honorary post) in a way that changes nothing and costs you nothing.

I like the unicorn line.

Moreover … and let me see if I can spell it in terms Hunt’s apologists can understand … the issue is not the joke. The issue is the gender bias behind the joke. Someone who feels free to make women the butt of his jokes at a conference designed to honor women may be so clueless about his own gender bias that he feels equally free to display and act on it in his treatment of his female graduate students.

Tim Hunt was entirely free to make offensive remarks to women. Connie St. Louis was entirely free to report his remarks. UCL was entirely free to condemn him for it.

The fact that apologists think there should be no consequences for Hunt’s speech, but condemnation and worse for those who were offended by it, is a classic tactic in dismissing gender bias, and it is unacceptable.

‘Senior important guys shouldn’t be held to account, because not being held to account should be one of the perks of being senior and important.’

Haha yeah–it took me until a few months ago to realise why ‘hypocrisy’ and ‘bad behaviour’ cut no ice with these people. Hypocrisy and bad behaviour are how you demonstrate status in this group.

The ongoing discussion of this issue has reminded me of another thing I went through a few years ago. My town has a monthly science cafe where a researcher gives a short presentation about their work, then discusses it with the audience over a beer. Our local women in STEM group used to meet at the venue, hang out for a while, then go to the science cafe together.

I stopped going after a few talks in a row in which the researchers said things that made it sound like they thought of women as some kind of weird alien pet. One guy referred a few times to ‘women’s underwear!’ as an example of something weird and unusual. (Dude, women’s underwear is not that weird and unusual. I see it every day.) Another guy started his talk by asking ‘what do physicists fear most?” After a few guesses from the audience, he cried, ‘no–women! hahahaha’. I was sitting next to a woman physicist at the time; I don’t think her gender is her greatest fear.

I suggested to the organiser that she just mention to the speakers, during the preparation process, that they remember that women will be in their audience; I don’t think that suggestion went anywhere. But now I’m thinking it would have been pointless anyway; speaking to an entire room full of women didn’t seem to give Tim Hunt any pause at all.

The fact that apologists think there should be no consequences for Hunt’s speech, but condemnation and worse for those who were offended by it, is a classic tactic in dismissing gender bias, and it is unacceptable. QFT – This must be one of the most concise summaries of the subject.

This made me laugh, but then it struck me that even an unpaid honorary position at UCL probably comes with some pretty nice and quite substantial perks for which I would willingly trade *all* my unicorns (and all my Ferraris as well).
And getting back to the main issue, I also think it’s worth considering the parallels between Hunt’s jokes and Charlie Hebdo’s cartoon depicting Christiane Taubira as a monkey. Both were offensive in the sense that many people were offended by them, but in the Hebdo case I think you have previously noted that the intent was probably not offensive (or at least not racist) and that the cartoon had to be understood in terms of the culture and context – it being a satirical exaggeration of something previously done by LePen. How can you be sure (especially without hearing the tone of voice in which it was delivered) that Hunt’s “joke” was not intended as a sarcastic mockery of the sexist attitude it seems to express?